DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mercurio (US 10,059,273).
Regarding claim 1, Mercurio discloses a vehicle rooftop sliding carrier 16 comprising: a fixed frame 18 configured to attach to a vehicle roof, the fixed frame including longitudinal members 26/27; a sliding frame 20 installed atop the fixed frame and configured to slide rearwardly relative to the vehicle, the sliding frame including longitudinal members 34/35 parallel to the fixed frame longitudinal members; a plurality of casters 38/39/41/42/44/45/47/48 located on the sliding frame longitudinal members for sliding the sliding frame rearwardly relative to the fixed frame; a stopper 80/82 and pin 65/66 for limiting rearward sliding of the sliding frame relative to the fixed frame when the sliding frame is fully extended (Figure 8); a locking mechanism 77/78 separate from the stopper 80/82 and pin 65/66, the locking mechanism comprising at least one locking pin 77 and corresponding holes 78 for releasably locking the sliding frame in a fixed position relative to the fixed frame; and, cargo attachments 24a/24b located on the sliding frame for securing cargo to the sliding frame.
Regarding claim 2, the sliding frame 20 is extendable from a rear of the fixed frame 18 and the vehicle to provide loading and unloading of cargo onto and from the sliding frame – see Figure 9.
Regarding claim 4, Mercurio discloses a telescopic pull handle 22 on a rear of the sliding frame for extending the sliding frame rearwardly.
Regarding claim 5, see clamps 30/31/32/33/70/73/74 for attaching the fixed frame to the vehicle roof.
Regarding claim 8, Mercurio discloses a securing attachment 94/95/96/97 for preventing cargo from sliding during loading and unloading.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercurio (US 10,059,273) in view of Stapleton et al. (US 6,827,244).
Regarding claim 6, Mercurio discloses the carrier substantially as claimed but does not disclose the sliding frame including hinges for pivoting a front portion relative to a rear portion of the sliding frame. Stapleton teaches a similar sliding carrier 10 having fixed frame members 12 and a sliding frame 16, the sliding frame including a plurality of sections 18a/18b/18c which are hinged together (see hinges 32) such that a front portion can pivot relative to a rear portion (Figure 4 and 5) such that the front portion can remain within the fixed frame while the rear portion pivots downward (Figures 6a and 6B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the sliding carrier with sections that are hinged together to allow only a portion of the frame to be lowered as needed to load and unload the carrier.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercurio (US 10,059,273) in view of Christensen (US 5,904,463).
Regarding claim 7, Mercurio discloses the carrier being mounted to the vehicle via clamps that secure to an existing roof rack on the vehicle. Mercurio does not disclose padded footings for supporting the fixed frame on the vehicle roof. Christensen discloses a roof rack carrier for loading and unloading items wherein the carrier has a fixed frame 50/60 that is provided with padded footings 200/90 and mounting members 210/225. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the carrier with padded footings in place of the clamp members in order to enable the carrier to be mounted to a vehicle without a pre-existing roof rack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Mercurio does not disclose a locking mechanism that is separate from the stopper and pin as now recited in claim 1. However, as applied above, Mercurio discloses a stopper 80/82 and pin 65/66 for limiting rearward sliding of the sliding frame relative to the fixed frame when the sliding frame is fully extended (Figure 8) and a locking mechanism 77/78 separate from the stopper 80/82 and pin 65/66, the locking mechanism comprising at least one locking pin 77 and corresponding holes 78 for releasably locking the sliding frame in a fixed position relative to the fixed frame.
Regarding claim 6, a new rejection has been made in view of the new/updated rejection of claim 1 and therefore the arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COREY N SKURDAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734